This is not your typical blog. We have recruited scholars and public policy analysts from around the world to provide daily news and commentary on the implications of bioethical issues for women. We hope you’ll bookmark this page and let us know what you think: just click on the comment link at the bottom of each post to join the discussion. To sign up for the WBP newsletter, visit our homepage at www.womensbioethics.org or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/khinsch

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy positions of the Women's Bioethics Project.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

[Cross-posted from AAVS.org website] Advocacy Groups Applaud Move that Could Open Debate on Patenting Animals

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a decision to open an investigation into whether rabbits and other animals whose eyes have been purposefully damaged can be patented. The patent (#6,924,413) which is being challenged by the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), and PatentWatch, argues that animals are not patentable subjects and that, in fact, animal patents provide an incentive to harm animals for economic gain. In addition, the patent challenge highlighted numerous instances of prior scientific publications that should invalidate the patent. The USPTO agreed that “substantial new questions of patentability” were raised.The groups’ first challenge to an animal patent succeeded in having the University of Texas drop its patent claims on beagles who were severely sickened and infected with mold. In addition, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that animals could not be patented, further challenging the legitimacy of animal patents in the U.S.

“Animal patents have no place in our society and are an inappropriate application of U.S. patent law. A rabbit with damaged eyes is still a rabbit,” said Tracie Letterman, an attorney and Executive Director of AAVS.

Results from a 2004 Opinion Research Corp. survey of 1,008 U.S. adults commissioned by AAVS found that two out of three people consider it unethical to issue patents on animals as if they were human inventions. Further, 85 percent of those surveyed were not even aware that universities and corporations are getting patents on animals.

More than 660 patents have been issued on animals since the Patent Office granted its first animal patent in 1988. Interestingly, approximately one-third of all animal patents granted to date are issued to foreign companies. The Japanese-owned Biochemical and Pharmacological Laboratories, Inc., filed the patent that is the subject of this challenge.

“Allowing foreign or domestic corporations to patent animals who have been intentionally injured, sickened, or genetically altered provides an incentive to harm animals for economic gain,” said Sue Leary, President of ARDF. “This directly conflicts with laws encouraging the replacement of animals in experiments with alternatives.”

“We’re pleased with the Patent Office for re-opening this patent application and hope that they will do the right thing by denying this patent,” said Andy Kimbrell of PatentWatch. “Our legal challenge and the poll numbers showing widespread public opposition to animal patenting should send a strong message to the Patent Office that this patent is neither legally valid nor morally acceptable.”For more information, including document downloads, visit www.StopAnimalPatents.org.-----------About AAVS: The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) is the oldest non-profit animal advocacy and educational organization in the United States dedicated to ending experiments on animals in research, testing, and education. Founded in Philadelphia in 1883, AAVS pursues its objectives through legal and effective advocacy, education, and support of the development of non-animal alternative methods.About ARDF: The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation funds and promotes the development, validation, and adoption of non-animal methods in biomedical research, product testing, and education.About PatentWatch: The PatentWatch Project of the International Center for Technology Assessment works to expose and challenge the inappropriate use of the U.S. patent system.

1 comment:

I still can't get over the horror I feel about this issue. While animal experimentation has negotiable benefits, the idea of patenting those animals after they have suffered grievous injury is inhuman and inhumane to the extreme.

VerveEarth

Contact Mailer

Nature Ally

Blog Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the contributors, and are NOT representative in any way of their employers or the Women's Bioethics Project.

The authors retain all copyright through the terms of the Creative Commons license on the site, and thus may use or publish any post elsewhere in compliance with U.S. copyright law. The information on this site is intended for educational discussion purposes only, and not as recommendations on how to diagnose or treat illnesses.

Nothing on this website constitutes legal, medical, or other professional advice. In addition, nothing on this blog serves to create any kind of professional relationship whatsoever.

No confidential patient or research subject information held by any author of any posting will be placed on the blog, nor should any information you post in comments or email written to the authors or managers of the blog, authors of its postings, in comments, to management, or to our design or technical support staff be considered confidential. Do not post or otherwise utilize confidential information of any kind on this site.